Merlin_Ambrosius69 posted:

---

Even rendered in CGI with gold dripping off them...!

Jolie said she was surprised, and a little embarrassed, to see what they did with her character, Grendel's mother. She was shown production sketches of the lizard woman manifestation whom we only see glimpses of in the finished film. She did not realize she would be rendered almost 100% nude!

---

JediTrilobite posted:

---

Vortigern99 - Your list is interesting, but I think you're lumping higher budget along with higher quality. Visual appeal is certainly something that's come a long way, and as George Lucas has pounded into our heads over the past decade, it allows filmmakers to do far more than what they used to be able to do.
I think that listing 10,000 BC, Spiderwick, the Incredible Hulk, Jumper, Prince Caspian and Indiana Jones as fine offerings is overly generous, especially when you note that they're better than 95% of the movies of the past decade. While this comes down to any given person's personal appeal, one man's trash is another's treasure, I think this is misguided. A movie can be loved by more people than those who dislike it - look at Spiderman 3, for example. Big movie at the box office. Still a crappy movie.

---

JediTrilobite posted:

---

Science Fiction and related genre movies have come a long way in some regards, mainly in how they are presented. However, I've noted that a lot of these films, while successful at the box office and have spectacular special effects, they tend to lack when it comes to their stories, and in a number of cases, are adaptations. Of your initial list, 80% of them are based off of a prior work. To me, this suggests that there is a distinct lack of creativity in the movie world, as there are very, very few original (if they can be called original) works nowadays. The one (ONE!) that comes to mind recently is Pan's Labyrinth. Getting up and going over to my shelf, I can also say that The Fountain is one that'll fit that list as well.

---

JediTrilobite posted:

---

This isn't to say that adaptations [are] bad. Solaris is one that comes to mind, as well as Children of Men, The Prestige, and Minority Report that, in my opinion, are some of the brighter films to have been produced lately.

There seems to be an inherent dislike of older movies, I've noticed, especially among the younger generations, who seem to prefer glamorous special effects over storytelling, which, in my opinion, is the true strength of Science Fiction and Fantasy, not the visual aspect. The big budget thrillers and blockbusters are fun to watch, but I've found that they can be predictable and loud. They don't make you think or really force you to pay attention.

The older films, while tHere are some absolutely awful ones out there, tend to be stronger (I'm not talking about the B-movies). There's no film that's come out recently that has rivaled masterpieces such as 2001: A Space Odyssey or Forbidden Planet or Blade Runner. The Fountain, Pan's Labyrinth, Children of Men, maybe someday, but it has yet to be seen whether they'll stand the test of time. Even Star Wars is up there, despite its flaws.

---

JediTrilobite posted:

---

I do have to agree with RX_Sith - I think that the best Science Fiction you're likely to find on screen is some of the television series that have come out. Battlestar Galactica, LOST, Firefly, Heroes - these have some very good parts to them, as they are primarily story driven, not special effects driven.

---

JediTrilobite posted:

---

Vortigern99 - SciFi is still a nich thing - It may sell millions upon millions of tickets and rake in the cash, but it's the least intensive element of geek... things. You don't need to do anything beyond sit in a chair for a couple hours, and many of the stories are so watered down that there's little thinking involved. What's good about all this is that it does expose a larger audience to scifi, which I think will help, provided it doesn't mean that movies are the extent to which people will be going to.

---

JediTrilobite posted:

---

Some of the movies that have come out in recent years that you list, Spiderman, Harry Potter, Jumper - none of these can come close to some of the bigger, and not-as-often-watched movies that I listed above, such as 2001, Blade Runner and Forbidden Planet. True, effects wise, they're not up to quite the same level, although when it comes to 2001, I'd argue with you. It seems like the really, really good scifi films that come out nowadays just don't reach the public perception, because they don't pander to an audience. The Fountain was booed at Cannes and barely made a mark in the box office. Solaris is largely disregarded, Serenity was forgotten, on and on.

What this seems to come down to is which film looks the best, and makes the most money. Gross generalization, but to me, that's the substance of it.

---

Vortigern99 posted:

---

JediTrilobite posted:

---

Vortigern99 - Your list is interesting, but I think you're lumping higher budget along with higher quality. Visual appeal is certainly something that's come a long way, and as George Lucas has pounded into our heads over the past decade, it allows filmmakers to do far more than what they used to be able to do.
I think that listing 10,000 BC, Spiderwick, the Incredible Hulk, Jumper, Prince Caspian and Indiana Jones as fine offerings is overly generous, especially when you note that they're better than 95% of the movies of the past decade. While this comes down to any given person's personal appeal, one man's trash is another's treasure, I think this is misguided. A movie can be loved by more people than those who dislike it - look at Spiderman 3, for example. Big movie at the box office. Still a crappy movie.

---

In fairness to myself, I never listed 10,000 BC as a "fine offering"; au contraire, I mentioned it as one of the failures.

---

Vortigern99 posted:

---

Now, with the advent of CGI and the trial-and-error period of the late 90s/early 2000s, most SFF movies are successful, both artistically and commercially. Just look at this year's fine offering of genre fare so far:

Cloverfield * 10,000 BC * Spiderwick * Iron Man * The Incredible Hulk * Forbidden Kingdom * Jumper * Prince Caspian * Indiana Jones

---

Vortigern99 posted:

---

JediTrilobite posted:

---

Science Fiction and related genre movies have come a long way in some regards, mainly in how they are presented. However, I've noted that a lot of these films, while successful at the box office and have spectacular special effects, they tend to lack when it comes to their stories, and in a number of cases, are adaptations. Of your initial list, 80% of them are based off of a prior work. To me, this suggests that there is a distinct lack of creativity in the movie world, as there are very, very few original (if they can be called original) works nowadays. The one (ONE!) that comes to mind recently is Pan's Labyrinth. Getting up and going over to my shelf, I can also say that The Fountain is one that'll fit that list as well.

---

First, what do you mean by "how they are presented"? Are you talking about production quality, cinematography, mise-en-scene (what's actually filmed in-camera, i.e. props, sets and costumes), and other aesthetic elements such as shot composition and editing? Because those elements are essential to what makes a good, effective film, and are part of what I mean when I say there are more excellent SFF films today than there were pre-2000. Comparing, say, Prince Caspian to say, Clash of the Titans (which I hold as one of the genre masterpieces of the 80s), we see that all the elements I listed above are superior in the more recent film. Clash is awesome and I love it, but its aesthetic qualities -- "how the movie is presented' -- are simply not as developed, as lush or as photo-realistic as those in Caspian. Caspian is a better-crafted, more aesthetically beautiful film.

Second, I fail to understand the premium you're placing on original -- that is, not adapted from pre-existing -- material. Either a movie is good or it isn't; whether it derives from something else is immaterial. Also, you seem to be overlooking the fact that many genre classics of previous decades -- from Superman and Batman to Excalibur and Conan to Aliens and The Terminator -- are also based on pre-existing works. Hollywood has been using novels, comics and other films as the basis of its movies for decades.

---

Vortigern99 posted:

---

I've already noted that comparing the singular masterpieces of yesteryear, which came sporadically -- years or even decades apart -- to the output of excellent SFF films of the last 8 years is rather disingenuous. It's difficult to be objective about a beloved classic from 40 years ago such as 2001, which was so incredibly effective and influential in its day. But comparing the filmmaking qualities of 2001 to those in say, Solaris or Contact yields no certain, objective proof that the older film is the superior. 2001 is a great movie, well deserving of its status as a masterpiece... and yet, shot-for-shot, line-for-line, scene-for-scene, I challenge the notion that it's some untouchable god of a film. Both the recent movies I noted above are at least as thought-provoking, intellectually challenging, visually stunning and socially commentative as 2001. The same could be said of Blade Runner vs. Children of Men, or Serenity vs. Forbidden Planet, The Dark Knight vs. Superman, etc.

Not only do we have masterpieces today that rival those of yesteryear, we also have a vast number of excellent genre movies, which are not masterpieces but which are far superior to the drek that came out with astonishing regularity during the 70s - 90s. I was a teenager in the 80s and a child in the 70s, and I know whereof I speak.

---

Vortigern99 posted:

---

JediTrilobite posted:Vortigern99 - SciFi is still a nich thing - It may sell millions upon millions of tickets and rake in the cash, but it's the least intensive element of geek... things. You don't need to do anything beyond sit in a chair for a couple hours, and many of the stories are so watered down that there's little thinking involved. What's good about all this is that it does expose a larger audience to scifi, which I think will help, provided it doesn't mean that movies are the extent to which people will be going to.



I completely disagree with this. The enormous ticket sales and overwhelming popularity of SFF films in the last 10 years prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that SFF is no longer a "niche" market. Perhaps you're operating from some alternate definition of the term, but niche marketing refers to a kind of divide-and-conquer strategy which producers know will yield X amount of returns from Y investment based on an understanding of the fanbase for that particular genre. This is the way SFF movies used to be made. They tended to be low-budget and poorly crafted, because the studios believed the audience for these kinds of films was limited to males 12-35 who liked science and read fantasy novels. Now that studios know that masses of people, including women and the elderly, will go and see a SFF movie because of the entertainment value, they're willing to invest larger budgets, better filmmakers and more craft into such films.

---

Vortigern99 posted:

---

No, it appears that you're the one making that accusation. I personally don't care a whit how well a film performs at the box office; that's not what makes a good film for me. Serenity and The Fountain are two of my all-time favorite movies, and they flopped, or made only modest returns. Whatever the reasons are for such films failing, the fact is that they're still out there; they're available to watch, and they keep being made. When I mention financial success, I'm using it to show that mass audiences embrace genre films in a way they never or rarely did before. The three classic films you keep mentioning were released 10+ years apart from one another, and I'm only discussing a period of 8 years so far.

It's true that this all comes down to subjective tastes, but that said, I stand by my conviction that comparing the bulk of SFF movies from any given year of the 70s, 80s or 90s (with the exception of 1981/2) to those of the last 8 years, will show that we've got a greater quantity of excellent genre films now than we ever did "back in the day".

---

JediTRilobite posted:

---

Films generally look better nowadays, there is no getting around that by any stretch of the imagination. Sets have a lot more work with, as people pay more attention to the smaller details, the CGI, camerawork, costumes, etc. But these elements are just PART of what makes a film good or even great - they are there to support the story, and that is what comes first and foremost. You can have the best looking film in the world, with the best actors, and still have it suck because the film's screenwriters were out to lunch. The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith all looked fantastic, but were really lacking when it came to the story, and that's where we have problems. I like to compare ROTS to Serenity, where Serenity had the superior story, and has the good sets and production to back up and support that.

---

JediTRilobite posted:

---

A movie can be very good, even an adaptation, but my concern here is that there is too little original thinking, and as a result, we have all these sequels. Originality is what sets stories apart. This is not to say that you can't have a sequel that really stands out and stands with greatness. Look at the Empire Strikes Back or the new Dark Knight. Both of these movies stand apart from their originals because they change direction, take on new themes and ideas. A lot of sequels don't do this, which is why the Harry Potter, Star Wars Prequels, Fantastic Four, Hulk, and on and on, don't hit the critical radar.

---

Vortigern99 posted:

---

I've already noted that comparing the singular masterpieces of yesteryear, which came sporadically -- years or even decades apart -- to the output of excellent SFF films of the last 8 years is rather disingenuous. It's difficult to be objective about a beloved classic from 40 years ago such as 2001, which was so incredibly effective and influential in its day. But comparing the filmmaking qualities of 2001 to those in say, Solaris or Contact yields no certain, objective proof that the older film is the superior. 2001 is a great movie, well deserving of its status as a masterpiece... and yet, shot-for-shot, line-for-line, scene-for-scene, I challenge the notion that it's some untouchable god of a film. Both the recent movies I noted above are at least as thought-provoking, intellectually challenging, visually stunning and socially commentative as 2001. The same could be said of Blade Runner vs. Children of Men, or Serenity vs. Forbidden Planet, The Dark Knight vs. Superman, etc.

Not only do we have masterpieces today that rival those of yesteryear, we also have a vast number of excellent genre movies, which are not masterpieces but which are far superior to the drek that came out with astonishing regularity during the 70s - 90s. I was a teenager in the 80s and a child in the 70s, and I know whereof I speak.

---

JediTRilobite posted:

---

Yes, we do have the advantage of hindsight, which is good, but it also means that too many people are eager to label a film as 'Brilliant' or 'Great'. I despite the two thumbs up rating, and a number of terms that people bandy around - they're overused, and people are far to eager to rate films higher than they deserve, generally.

Looking at a film scene by scene and line by line for greatness is dangerous. No film is perfect, and comparing a film on individual strengths or weaknesses against others is just one way to prove or disprove a theory on how good your argument is. Looking at a film as a whole, plus its impact on the film industry and perceptions within the genre, I would challenge you to find a movie that is as groundbreaking as 2001. I can't for the life of me think of any that have come out since 2000, because the films haven't been able to stand the test of time yet, and with as many advances in technology, it's easy to get bogged down in the weeds over small technical things.

---

JediTRilobite posted:

---

Movies yes, literature? No way. The sales of magazines and novels has steadily gone down piecemeal over the past couple of decades, to the point where some of the bigger magazines are likely to start struggling in the next couple of years. The Scifi market is boldered by numerous tie-in novels, such as the Star Wars and Star Trek books, but also movie novelizations and things along those lines. Science Fiction and Fantasy films are not the only part of sci-fi fandom by any means. I'd say that your standard action or thriller movie genre, while sometimes touching on scifi themes, is far more stronger, although not quite as united across the various formats. But poll a hundred people going out to see the Dark Knight - how many of them would have read Frank Miller's comics, or any number of other things outside of the movie field? I'd suspect a very small number.

---

Vortigern99 posted:

---

No, it appears that you're the one making that accusation. I personally don't care a whit how well a film performs at the box office; that's not what makes a good film for me. Serenity and The Fountain are two of my all-time favorite movies, and they flopped, or made only modest returns. Whatever the reasons are for such films failing, the fact is that they're still out there; they're available to watch, and they keep being made. When I mention financial success, I'm using it to show that mass audiences embrace genre films in a way they never or rarely did before. The three classic films you keep mentioning were released 10+ years apart from one another, and I'm only discussing a period of 8 years so far.

It's true that this all comes down to subjective tastes, but that said, I stand by my conviction that comparing the bulk of SFF movies from any given year of the 70s, 80s or 90s (with the exception of 1981/2) to those of the last 8 years, will show that we've got a greater quantity of excellent genre films now than we ever did "back in the day".

---

JediTRilobite posted:

---

I'm not intending to pointing fingers at anyone - this is a very broad generalization, and why films at this quality level do well, here we're on the same page, but the point can't be avoided - a lot of these movies, which you're holding up on a pedestal are the bigger budget films that are much more popular. To me, this is really unfortunate, because I have very little faith in the critical thinking abilities of American audiences - They can pick good movies at times, but we've got such a rush of poorer movies that it's painful.

---

Vortigern99 posted:

---

Yet my entire premise here is that recent SFF movies are better than what we had back in the day. The PT movies may not be as good as the OT films (and that is arguable, especially with regard to ROTJ), but they're far superior to just about any other SFF movie of the 70s-90s.

---

Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon posted:

---

Of course everyone has different tastes, but the [below] are just some of the older genre movies I'd argue are anywhere from slightly to vastly superior to the PT.

---

Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon / Vortigern99 posted:

---

Superman: The Movie, Superman II // Spider-Man 1 and 2
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country // Firefly (TV) and Serenity
The Terminator, Terminator 2: Judgment Day // Dune, Children of Dune miniseries (TV)
Blade Runner // Children of Men
RoboCop // Iron Man
Ghostbusters, Ghostbusters II // Pirates of the Caribbean 1 and 2
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze // Shrek 1-2 (not precisely comparable, but it is fantasy and has a similar parody quality as TMNT)
Alien, Aliens // Battlestar Galactica (TV)
Batman, Batman Returns // Batman Begins, The Dark Knight
Edward Scissorhands // Donnie Darko
Back to the Future, Back to the Future Part II, Back to the Future Part III // Harry Potter 1-5
Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade // IG & the Crystal Skull, Mummy 1 and 2
Jurassic Park // King Kong
E.T. the Extra-terrestrial // War of the Worlds
Hook // Peter Pan (live action)
The Last Starfighter // TITAN AE (animated)
Short Circuit // WALL-E
Gremlins, Gremlins 2: The New Batch // The Spiderwick Chronicles

---

Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon posted:

---

I think that the modern era has overall sacrificed quality for quantity. Most of the films on my list above are considered iconic, and a good number are considered masterpieces. Other than The Matrix, Lord of the Rings, and now perhaps The Dark Knight, I can't think of any SFF films in the last decade that reach the level of even half the films on this list.

I'll give you this, though: 2008 specifically has been a very SOLID year for genre movies, and one of the strongest summer seasons since 1989. Iron Man, WALL-E, The Incredible Hulk, Hellboy II, The Dark Knight were all quite good, while Indy 4 and The Mummy 3 were fun if flawed adventures. It would've been even better if the two big 4th-quarter SFF releases (Harry Potter and Star Trek) hadn't gotten bumped to 2009, but if the movies are improved because of this then I'm OK.

I don't think the ratio of good to bad SFF movies is much different now than 20 years ago. But I do think the ratio of great SFF films to the rest has dropped a bit.

---

Vortigern99 posted:

---

As you've noted, it does indeed come down to personal taste. Unfortunately, my heartfelt opinion on this score appears to be at odds with many others'. If the negative response I've received so far is any indication, I seem to be in the extreme minority with regard to the general thrust of this thread and its title. Nonehtless I stand by my assessment: most genre movies are excellent these days, with a few duds and precious handful of masterpieces; whereas in the 70s-90s most genre films were awful, with a few good ones and precious handful of masterpieces.

---